Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated in my earlier Answer, there are some difficulties about acquiring such figures as the police are not necessarily the first on the scene of an accident, so there is no accurate evidence. The police do not record whether seat belts had been worn and one cannot always tell. My noble friend is absolutely right, that the wearing of seat belts saves lives. As many as 15 front-seat occupants were killed last year by unbelted rear-seat passengers colliding with them. It is important that rear seat belts are worn, but, as I have mentioned to my noble friend, there is a difficulty about statistics.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government spend £1.5 million a year on publicising campaigns on the wearing of seat belts. Senior police officers are only too well aware of the Government's drive towards improving seat-belt usage. I do not believe that the Government send out mixed messages, but the House will recognise that compliance with certain aspects of motoring law—drink driving is the most obvious example—is bound to be taken much more seriously by the police than seat-belt compliance. Nevertheless, quite clearly the Government want to encourage the use of seat belts as much as possible.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not have that range of figures. But I think that my noble friend has lighted upon another important aspect of compliance, which is that it is not mandatory for coaches at the present time. Nevertheless, the use of seat belts in coaches helps to reduce accidents. We are eager to bring that to the attention of all people who use coaches.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I accept the difficulty of collecting statistics as regards the wearing of seat belts by people involved in fatal or serious accidents. Would it not be worth going to a little trouble and expense to try to get such information because it would underpin significantly the Government's efforts to encourage the wearing of seat belts? If people know the likelihood of surviving an accident with a seat belt compared to the consequences without one, surely that would help in furthering the Government's policy?

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the poorest pensioners are the most likely to suffer from fuel poverty? Well over 1.5 million pensions do not claim the pension credit to which they are entitled. What are the Government going to do about that?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have just said, the providers of Warm Front will supplement the efforts of the DWP to identify and improve the take up of benefit. The noble Lord is correct to say that pensioners are among the most vulnerable, although other households are also vulnerable in this respect. The gearing of Warm Front's activity and that under the energy efficiency commitment and the improvements in social housing take account of the fact that pensioners are more likely to be found in the categories identified in those programmes.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the economists will give us a number of reasons for the rise in gas prices, including the slightly odd link to oil prices. The fact we are moving from being a net exporter to a net importer of gas means that there is some pressure in the short term on gas prices, although the belief is that gas prices will come down in subsequent years.
	With regard to my noble friend's first question, the Conservative Party imposed VAT on fuel. There was a point—perhaps noble Lords opposite would like to clarify this—when the Conservative Party was in favour of abolishing the Warm Front programme, which has done so much to remove fuel poverty from vulnerable households.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister concede that it is now time for us to have a national strategy to stop the dreadful number of fuel-related deaths every winter? That strategy should measure the number of people and ensure that the targets are not according to means but simply reflect the number of people who die each winter, along the lines of the French strategy set up when half the number of people who die each year in this country every year died as a result of the heat a couple of summers ago. The deaths are a disgrace and must be tackled as a matter of immediate concern.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. What new, imaginative plans for the G8 countries are being proposed this year, from big business to householders, to reduce carbon emissions? Will best practice in the G8 countries be publicised? Will Government and industry make more use of displays in shopping centres and museums of science and technology? In one museum in Florida, they have a Disasterville. How about us having a Climateville or Sustainville to show everyone what needs to be done?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, part of the output of various events taking place, including the Exeter conference and the meeting of environment and energy Ministers taking place later this month, will be to share best practice and the best means to educate and inform the public and business of the problem of climate change and what individuals can do about it. It is clear that there is a general level of awareness, but not sufficient change in behaviour in either commerce or households. Defra has just announced a £12 million package to improve education at information schemes for individuals so that each of us can better understand what we can do to help to tackle that problem.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, in the light of the Exeter and Houston conferences, can the Minister reassure the House that the UK's national allocation plan for a reduction in C02 emissions has now been accepted by the European Commission? Has it been re-submitted?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Mr Maxwell's estimates are not universally accepted, but they suggest that if we continue to increase demand for fossil fuels, we will create a serious problem of climate change and begin to run out of fossil-based fuels and, in the interim, significantly increase their cost. That is why it is important that we consider all low-carbon technologies, including wind power, tidal power and wave power, but also the nuclear option, which we have kept open, on the understanding—the next Question touches on this matter—that for nuclear power to play a major role in future, we will need to resolve the issue of radioactive waste.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish their response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on Radioactive Waste Management (5th Report, Session 2003–04, HL Paper 200).

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government's response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on Radioactive Waste Management was sent to the committee on 23 February. The response addresses specifically each of the Select Committee's conclusions, which I hope is in a manner that will be helpful and informative.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is not a hiatus in CoRWM's activity, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The work is continuing and CoRWM will soon be reporting on its shortlist of options for dealing with radioactive waste, following which it will make its detailed recommendations. It was necessary for CoRWM to assess all feasible, and some not very feasible, options that were put to it and also to consider how we dealt with the issue in relation to public opinion, which, as the noble Lord will recognise, is a very delicate issue.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government keep in touch with all of the developing technologies. The role of CoRWM relates specifically to what to do with radioactive waste, much of which exists already, as we have said earlier, irrespective of any further decision on nuclear power. As the noble Lord will know, we are in touch, through the various nuclear authorities, including the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, with developments internationally and, at research level, with development internationally on fusion as well as current technologies.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, my name is also on the amendment.
	We would welcome the principle of parliamentary involvement in the setting up of an inquiry into ministerial misconduct. We would certainly welcome some procedure by which an inquiry could be set up by Parliament without it being initiated by the Government. Possibly the best solution would be for a Select Committee of either House to conduct such inquiries on its own initiative. That would not require statutory authority and is, therefore, not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. Also, it must be said that a forensic inquiry of such a kind would need to be conducted by counsel for the committee and not under the normal procedure, with each member of the committee asking questions in turn. That would be unworkable. Unfortunately, it seems that the chairmen of the Select Committees in the other place are not particularly receptive to that idea.
	On Report, we supported the draft amendment annexed to the report of the Public Administration Select Committee. However, on further consideration of it—it was published only 24 hours before we had to table the amendment—I concluded that there were serious defects in it. First, if a parliamentary procedure were mandatory for an inquiry involving ministerial misconduct, it would be necessary to draw a line between inquiries according to whether they did or did not involve ministerial misconduct. That could be difficult. It could well turn out that, during the course of an inquiry that was not originally thought to involve ministerial misconduct, it did in fact involve such misconduct.
	Secondly, the Pasque amendment would lead to the Government using the non-statutory inquiry whenever the occasion arose, in order to avoid having to use the parliamentary procedure. The new version of this amendment, by making it optional for the Government to use the parliamentary procedure in misconduct cases, would avoid both these defects.
	A government might well think it appropriate to use the parliamentary procedure in high-profile cases, to meet public concerns about the independence of the inquiry. They would not be tied down by any requirement to use that procedure in any particular case. This seems something that ought to be welcomed by the Government, since it would give it a degree of flexibility that it does not have under the present Bill. We are, therefore, happy to support this amendment.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, have at various stages of the Bill proposed—up to now, separately—different amendments to try and involve the two Houses of Parliament in some way in the setting up of an inquiry. They referred to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which involved resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
	What is before us today is, to some extent, without being unduly rude, a watered-down version of amendments that have been proposed by the two noble Lords at previous stages of this Bill. On Report, they were fortified—certainly I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, felt he was fortified—by the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration favouring a parliamentary inquiry, or parliamentary involvement, or a parliamentary commission, as the Select Committee referred to it. The noble Lord, Lord Kingland, liberally quoted from that report.
	In this amendment the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, are not directly pursuing the idea of a parliamentary inquiry, though from what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, he was perhaps indicating an element of encouragement to the other House to insert something appropriate along those lines, as and when they get the Bill. As has been said previously, at any stage either House of Parliament is free to call for and arrange an inquiry—for example, into ministerial conduct—without a Minister necessarily being the prime mover.
	In this amendment the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, want a resolution of Parliament approving a ministerial proposal to hold an inquiry whenever the terms of reference "relate wholly or partially" to events involving "alleged ministerial misconduct". I notice that the Minister is given a discretion. The amendment says that he may act "if he sees fit"—presumably sometimes he may not see fit to move such a resolution. The amendment expressly states that the
	"inquiry is not invalidated by the absence of such a resolution".
	It strikes me, subject only to the element of encouragement to the other House when it gets this Bill, that there is not much left of what the noble Lords have been putting to the House at various stages of this Bill about getting Parliament involved. We have a somewhat inchoate resolution that may or may or not be passed and, whether it is or is not, it does not make any difference to the ministerial determination to have an inquiry.
	Therefore, whatever view one takes about the need for parliamentary involvement in setting up an inquiry when ministerial conduct is involved, I am not sure of the value of the amendment. I am not sure that this does much either for the arguments that I have heard noble Lords opposite giving at earlier stages or otherwise.

Lord Laming: My Lords, my I briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in his well argued concerns about this amendment.
	As indicated, we have discussed these matters at earlier stages, seeking to find a way that we might improve on the current position. We need to be cautious about moving away from what I would consider the basic principles: that the appointment of a Minister is in the gift of the Prime Minister. Ministers have to perform to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister, but also within the established ministerial code. Of course, a Minister can be removed by the Prime Minister at any time.
	When it comes to ministerial misconduct, we need to exercise some caution against cutting across the machinery already in place in another place to deal with concerns about ministerial conduct or indeed the conduct of any other Member of the House. I would suggest that this amendment does not add anything that is not already in place in the other place.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, that I am grateful for their taking on board some of the issues that I raised when we previously discussed the principle behind this amendment and also for the time that they gave me last week when we discussed outside your Lordships' House the issues that are raised here. Like other noble Lords, I intend to be reasonably brief, because we have dealt with the issues during the passage of the Bill.
	The Government cannot accept this amendment. There are a number of reasons that I wish to allude to briefly in describing why, some of which have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Borrie and others by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
	The first is, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, that the ministerial code sets out the standards that the Prime Minister expects Ministers to uphold. The Prime Minister's foreword to that code makes clear that he expects all Ministers to work with the letter and the spirit of the code, to undertake their official duties in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety. The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of the behaviour expected of a Minister and of the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
	Secondly, although we recognise that this is an optional amendment, we believe that, if it were part of the Bill, there would be enormous pressure if it were not used on every occasion somehow making the inquiry substandard. There is a genuine political point there. The reality, as the noble Lords must be aware, is that the Prime Minister and others would always be expected to use it.
	That brings us to the real concern that I have about the definition of "misconduct".

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would like to ask whether the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, agrees that although the Tribunal of Inquiry Act procedure is available now, it has rarely been used in cases of ministerial conduct. Many cases, such as the Hutton inquiry or the Hammond inquiry, have been conducted by non-statutory inquiries.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is correct. However, I contend that, if this amendment were to go through, there would be a political pressure for the Prime Minister to seek a vote in both Houses on all occasions in issues of misconduct. That is a reality. I accept that the current position may be different, just as I accept that there are already powers within Parliament to do other things, as I will come on to. None the less, it would be there to give the Minister or Prime Minister a greater ability to set up an inquiry in a particular way and to give those parties, whether they are inside or outside your Lordships' House or another place, the opportunity to push for that, to give credence to the inquiry. I do not believe that we can get away from that—it is political life, and we have to accept it.
	That brings me on to the issue of defining misconduct, which we have discussed. When one reads the report from the Public Administration Committee, Sir Michael Bichard in his the evidence talked about the continuum. The difficulty is in defining ministerial misconduct. The noble Lords who tabled the amendment will, I am sure, have a clear picture in their own minds of what they would include in that. The Bill is about events of real importance; it is designed to deal with the kind of inquiries that we have seen on the Victoria Climbié tragedy, Alder Hey, Bristol hospital and so on. That is really its prime purpose. There is a real concern that you can look at any inquiry and find, if you wish, an issue of ministerial misconduct—whether because, if funding had been better in a particular aspect of public life, the tragedy might not have happened, or whatever. So there is a problem in defining when ministerial misconduct has taken place.
	Although noble Lords and Members of another place may feel very clear about what they or we mean, I would argue that outside the Houses of Parliament those who are victims of a tragedy may say, "Actually, the government are at fault here—we believe this is a real issue of misconduct in the government, because these events would not have taken place if the government hadn't acted in that way". So I have a real difficulty in drawing the line on ministerial misconduct. Although noble Lords may have a very clear view in their own minds, many people outside your Lordships' House would feel very passionately that issues such as funding would come under the term, and pressure would result from that.
	Above anything else, this Bill is about the need to ensure that when we conduct inquiries into matters of real public concern, there is confidence in the system. Anything that we do that undermines that confidence in any way is to the detriment of our society. I would argue that if we included in the Bill something that said that in certain circumstances it was a very good idea for the Prime Minister to put this forward and then said that it would not matter if he did not—and then have victims of the tragedy saying that in their view, the matter was absolutely about misconduct, even if the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, and I would say that it was not—we would undermine public confidence. I am very reluctant to do that.
	I, too, have had the privilege of discussing the issues with the chairman of the Public Administration Committee and I, too, have put lots of ideas to him. I recognise that there is a genuine desire to discuss the issues. Of course, as it was a committee appointed by another place, my ambition was that there would be a full debate in another place—hence my halving that time available in the timetable to reply to the Public Administration Committee, so that by Second Reading our response would be out and there could be a full and proper debate in another place. As I pointed out, and as noble Lords know, the Select Committee process could be a means of dealing with these issues. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent Parliament deciding on a procedure.
	I do not deny the need for a debate, but in the end I believe that this is the wrong amendment. As the Minister responsible for this Bill, it is not my contention that we should send this Bill to the Commons with such a proposal attached to it, for the reasons that I have given. I really hope that noble Lords will accept that we want a full and proper debate on the committee report in another place, on the basis of what I have said about the issues, and that they will have the benefit of that debate in their deliberations if the Bill comes back to this House. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments, to ensure that public confidence is at the heart of this Bill.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply.
	The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is right in observing that the amendment resiles from the muscularity of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself tabled on Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we had sight of the report from another place only 24 hours before we had to table amendments, which gave neither of us time properly to examine all the implications of the Public Administration Committee's draft.
	However, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would mind my saying that as a result of a period of further reflection, while I remain attracted to the amendment that we tabled on Report, he had certain reservations which he expressed, very fairly; therefore, in the spirit of compromise, we devised the amendment currently before your Lordships. I believe that it is also fair to say that, in the course of devising the amendment, we had a number of discussions with the Minister in the hope that we might find a draft of sufficient allure to change the Minister's view. As your Lordships have heard from the Minister's comments at the Dispatch Box, that was not to be.
	I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said about our amendment. I was rather puzzled by the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, as has the whole House. It seems to me that constitutionally a Minister is accountable not to the Prime Minister but to Parliament. The whole logic of our constitution is that Ministers are responsible to Parliament. Therefore, in my submission, the fundamental responsibility to make Ministers live up to the standards which they ought to live up to reposes in Parliament. In my view, the amendment that we have tabled seeks to achieve precisely that.
	The Minister feared that, if the amendment was included in the Bill, Parliament might be tempted to use it. That was the whole purpose for which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself tabled it in the first place. If we cannot robustly protect the position of Parliament in relation to a Minister's conduct, I wonder what we are all for. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Clause 10 provides that if a Minister wants to appoint a judge as a member of an inquiry panel, he or she must consult the appropriate judge. The appropriate judge is the senior Law Lord for serving Law Lords. No doubt if and when the Constitutional Reform Bill is enacted, for justices of the Supreme Court the appropriate judge would be the President of the Supreme Court. The appropriate judge for the judiciary of England and Wales is the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales; for the judiciary of Scotland it is the Lord President of the Court of Session; and for the judiciary of Northern Ireland it is the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
	The purpose of the amendment, which is very simple, is to require the consent of the appropriate judge instead of simply a requirement to consult him or her. I moved a similar amendment on Report. The main speeches on that occasion in favour of this amendment came from the Lord President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, and the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I was, and remain, happy to adopt both their speeches.
	To summarise briefly, as this is a Third Reading debate, judges cannot always be spared from their job. That is especially true in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, which has only 12 members, and it has been deprived of the services of one of the—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville—for the past seven years. There may also be circumstances where it is inappropriate for any judge to chair a particular inquiry. There is a danger if the issues are too political, because the involvement of a judge may be seen as harmful to judicial independence; or the subject matter may be inappropriate for a judge to act as chair. One possible example of that was the inquiry chaired by Lord Wilberforce, many years ago, into the dock labour system. He produced a report that was widely regarded as not being the high point of his otherwise extremely prestigious career.
	As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, said, it is difficult for a judge to turn down an approach from the government to chair an inquiry. In England and Wales up to now, the Lord Chancellor has been the head of the judiciary. It is fairly obvious that he could hardly ask himself for his own consent to the appointment of a particular judge to chair an inquiry. But the forthcoming enactment of the Constitutional Reform Bill will change that, and the Lord Chief Justice will be head of the judiciary and, under the concordat that accompanies the Constitutional Reform Bill, he will be responsible for judicial deployment. We believe that it is appropriate that his consent should be required. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, argued the case very strongly on Report. He is unable to be here today because he has to chair a meeting of the Judges' Council, but he has told me that his views remain unaltered since he expressed them on Report.
	I believe that the arguments apply a fortiori to the smaller judicial bodies in the Appellate Committee, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. It is in the interests of everyone, including the Government, that if a judge is to be appointed to an inquiry he should be appointed by the joint agreement of the Minister and the appropriate senior judge. I believe that this is a significant amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is neither arrogance nor shabbiness that drives this Minister to take a different view from all those, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who have spoken. Being a non-lawyer, I may have approached the issue from a slightly different direction.
	In Clause 10 we have tried to recognise judicial independence, and to be clear about our understanding of it. We take seriously our responsibility to consult the Lord Chief Justice. Indeed, we are required, having put it in the Bill, to take note of what the Lord Chief Justice has said, and to take the issues he or she has raised into account. However, the responsibility for deciding whether to take on an inquiry rests with the individual judge. The notion of "boss" was used to describe the relationship between the Lord Chief Justice and an individual judge. I do not consider that to be the traditional relationship between a boss and an individual judge, but there are issues about a judge being allowed to make that decision.
	The question of resources is important. One the one hand, one could argue strongly, as noble Lords have done, that the Lord Chief Justice would be particularly minded to consider that question; I accept that. I am sure that the present Lord Chief Justice, and any future one, would take that extremely seriously. However, the purpose of the Bill is to deal with events of such importance—it is hard to indicate what they might be—that have shaken public confidence, when there are real concerns about what has happened to an individual, or to a system within government, that need to be considered carefully and investigated properly. Noble Lords on all sides have talked about the important role that judges, senior or otherwise, can play in that regard, and I agree with them.
	The issue of resources has to be weighed by someone against the need for the issue to be investigated thoroughly and properly. It could be argued that asking any distinguished person to chair an inquiry, be they a senior member of the medical profession or of another organisation, will have resource implications, which should be taken seriously. In the overall scheme of things, considering the seriousness of the inquiry being undertaken, I contend that sometimes an issue is so serious that it is crucial that someone with great standing looks at it, and does so quickly, and that we should have the ability to say that that overrides issues of resources. That is the critical dividing line between us; it is not arrogance or shabbiness.
	We believe it is right to consult the Lord Chief Justice or the other senior judges within the Bill; that it is right and proper to take on board their concerns and considerations, and for them to make their concerns known, as they will, to Lord Justice Bloggs, to quote the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Notwithstanding those important issues—which perhaps might be resolved in other ways—it is still right and proper that the Minister should be able to say, "I believe that this is the right person to give us the public confidence we need, and I would like to ask them". It is then for that individual of standing to weigh up the considerations between the issues that have been put forward by the Lord Chief Justice and the Minister, as I have absolute confidence that our judges would do, and say yes or no. It is that issue that divides us, and no other.
	Ultimately the question is who has to decide that an inquiry is so important that someone of stature and standing is needed. Even though there will be resource issues for that person's profession—in this case, it happens to be the legal profession, but there are several others it could be—I believe I should be able to go and ask them, and they should have the right to say no. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with great respect, before the Minister sits down, what is at issue here is the resources not of the legal profession but of the courts, which are part of the judicial arm of Government. The Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales, not a Minister of the Crown, has been charged with the responsibility for that. Surely it cannot be right for the Minister in the executive government to be able to overrule the decision of the Lord Chief Justice upon whether a person can be spared from his judicial strength in order to perform a particular act. Of course, there are always possibilities for negotiation. For example, the consent of the Lord Chief Justice might be secured by the executive asking that vitally important question.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would accept that I have striven—successfully or otherwise—to understand noble Lords' concerns on all of the amendments being put forward. Indeed, in talking both to officials and to those, far greater than myself, who draft the amendments, we have striven to ensure that we have covered what are valid and important points.
	The noble Lord and I agree that it would be inappropriate to have a widely cast power enabling the Minister to remove somebody on a whim, for the reasons given. The noble Lord has indicated to me that the concern comes down to the phrase within the Bill: "any other reason". If I have read the noble Lord's issues properly, he is concerned that the phrase is very wide. Perhaps "any other reason" could mean "because I do not like the look of you", or "because you are causing me a bit of a problem".
	I understand that concern—and have checked carefully with officials to ensure that the language in which the phrase is couched is indeed a standard legislative phrase. It has to be interpreted in the contexts of other reasons listed. So, if I may quote the Bill, it allows the Minister to do so, if:
	"for any other reason, the member is unable to carry out the duties of a member of the inquiry panel".
	So the Minister cannot decide to sack somebody for no good reason, because the member would still be able to carry out their duties. That is the constraint within the provision; the only grounds on which the Minister can do so are if the person is unable to carry out their duties as a member of the panel.
	We have talked at previous stages about physical or perhaps, sadly, mental illness. The provision is intended to capture any similar reasons that we have been unable to predict, but can only be used on the grounds that members are not able to carry out their duties—not because the Minister has an alternative view. While not being complacent, because I am confident that is what it means, I think that we have captured what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seeks to achieve regarding the right context. For that reason alone, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I—having checked and been very clear what it relates to—have done my job and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in the annals of history, I hope that this amendment will go down as the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord who has shared his concern with me on a number of occasions. He has given me the benefit of reading some of the articles that he has written and pointed me in the general direction of looking very carefully at some of the issues that I know he feels strongly about from his own experience.
	The amendment that I move today underlines the existing duty in common law to act fairly. It makes absolutely clear that the chairman must follow fair procedures. Although safeguarding costs is an important element in conducting inquiries it must not compromise fairness. The amendment would enshrine that balance. One of the duties placed on the chairman to ensure that he is acting fairly will be to assess whether certain participants should be granted some form of legal representation or advice. That duty will be supplemented by rules under Clause 41 which will ensure fair procedures. I beg to move.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I would like to express my appreciation not just for the kind words that the noble Baroness has just uttered but, more widely, for my appreciation of the manifest care and attention that she has given to this question in the meetings that she has had with me. I thank her a thousand-fold if she has really read my articles as thoroughly as they deserve. I accept warmly this important and valuable concession. As always, one would like to have had the whole cake, but I would certainly not want to see the best becoming the enemy of the good.
	Clearly, the Minister has been striving on this topic and striving with success. If my noble friend Lord Kingsland might give her three—or even, because of his Generosity, four—out of 10 for striving, I would readily give her eight or even nine out of 10. I have been more fortunate on this occasion than he has been.
	I also appreciate what she had to say about the extent to which this will be governed by the rules made under this Act. I hope that the debates that we have had at each stage of this legislation will help to focus those rules and that, in light of the way in which she has finally dealt with this, care will be taken to avoid any kind of presumption against the concept of representation. Fortunately, over the past 10 years or so, there has been a great deal of distillation of wisdom on this matter starting under the commitment to the Council on Tribunals by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of all these questions following the Scott inquiry.
	There has emerged, not least as a result of this legislation, the existence of a well-informed unit at the heart of government. I like to think that will nestle in what may be the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that it will be consulted regularly. Whatever we may say in these debates, in the final analysis the management of these inquiries—their composition and terms of reference—depends above all on judgment. The concentration of that judgment and experience in a unit of experienced people in this department would mean that there will always be proper consultation—"Have we got the right guy to chair this? Have we got the right group to support him?" All those questions deserve fuller examination than they have received on some occasions. If these debates serve to fortify that commitment, then I am even more pleased to step up my award to nine, lurching towards 10. I thank the Minister very much for what she has managed to achieve.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I can deal with this group of amendments quite speedily. The issues have been extensively discussed in all earlier phases of the Bill. They deal with whether the Minister should have control over the publication of a report. The amendments would remove any role that a Minister might have in the publication of the report and would leave both the report's substance and the timing of its publication to the chairman.
	The reason behind the amendment is exactly the same as that behind several earlier lines of amendments concerning the balance of power in the inquiry process between a Minister and a chairman. It is wholly inappropriate that the Minister should be able to influence either the content or the timing of a report of an inquiry. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that I am able to give the assurances asked of me and that, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, —I will call him my noble friend— will withdraw his amendment. We all pay tribute to his work and I think he was anxious to have a government statement in Hansard today, so that the situation is unambiguous.
	I fully agree with your Lordships that the purpose of the Bill and of this duty are to make a difference to the lives of disabled people, whether they have a learning disability or any other impairment. It is a sad fact of life that learning disabled people still experience institutional discrimination when they interact with public services. The health sector is no different.
	For example, one study that I was reading over the weekend has found that learning disabled people are 58 times more likely to die before the age of 50 than non-disabled people. The statistic is due not to their impairments but to their access to suitable health care. It also gave the example that although 75 per cent of non-learning disabled women take up mammography, only about 25 per cent of learning disabled people do so.
	Such figures illustrate why it is so important that the duty to promote equality is implemented effectively in the health sector as in other parts of public life. It is precisely this type of discrimination that the Bill seeks to address.
	The Government will be working closely with the DRC to ensure that the duty is implemented effectively. As your Lordships will be aware, we published draft regulations recently that could be made under powers granted by Clause 3. Our consultation document, Delivering Equality for Disabled People, made it clear that the duties will be applied widely across the health sector.
	The DRC has already published its draft code of practice on the duty. I am glad that the consultation on the code will include events particularly focused on health issues. I am also sure that the DRC's formal investigation into the health inequalities experienced by learning disabled people and people experiencing mental distress will also be fruitful in informing the development of guidance and best practice.
	I hope therefore that your Lordships will accept that we are meeting the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, asks for and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again I shall depart from my brief. I had thought that there was consent around the notion of the annual report, which is why I assumed that that was accepted. I was assuming, too, that we all accepted that there should be a terminal date of 2020 for rail vehicles.
	Perhaps I should enlarge on the process that we are suggesting before 2020. First, there will be a set of framework regulations for the period before 2020 which would lay out what exemptions before 2020 needed to come to your Lordships' House under the affirmative procedure and what could be handled under the negative procedure. We have given assurances that those draft regulations setting out the framework would be affirmative. I am very happy to circulate those in advance, so that we can consider the provisions, whether on issues of cost or time or whatever.
	What I judged to be the main concern, however, was whether 2020 should be absolute as a line that we draw and therefore whether exemptions should be tolerated or permitted beyond that time. If the noble Lord would like me to expand any further on the period before 2020, I am happy to do so. We have set up by agreement a two-step process, which will I hope satisfy your Lordships. The core of our disagreement is found in the question, "Why do the Government believe that we need a power to make exemptions beyond 2020?". That is the core issue to address today.
	There are four questions that noble Lords may wish to put to me, and I shall try to answer. First, why are any exemptions needed at all? Some of the ground will be familiar but, if we do not have exemptions, vehicles used on systems such as the London and Glasgow undergrounds are unlikely ever to be able to meet the full requirements of the accessibility regulations by virtue of their infrastructure—for example, the tunnels and so on. There is general agreement that in the case of Glasgow, it would be impossible for the vehicles to meet the requirements of the regulations in relation to wheelchair accommodation.
	Similarly, with regard to the London underground, the size of the tunnels on the Victoria line restricts the use of vehicles. In turn, that means that if the vehicles used on that line were to be fitted with RVAR-compliant handrails in the doorway area, they would pose a serious head-strike hazard to many passengers. We are trying to balance one requirement against the other. So the first point is why the exemptions are needed at all. There will be some situations, such as with the London and Glasgow undergrounds, in which we judge that the vehicles can never be fully compliant. It is necessary to provide exemptions for those systems, in the event that they remain legally operational beyond 2020.
	The second question is, "Why not list those exemptions?". I believe that was proposed at an earlier stage. Exemptions may be listed in primary legislation—why should we not do that? Well, we would not want to exempt the rail vehicles used on such systems from all the requirements of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations. While the Glasgow underground may not be able to meet all of the requirements for wheelchair access, there is no reason why it should be exempt from all of the other requirements, for example, on colour and tonal contrast. On London Underground, while on vehicles used on certain lines, such as the Victoria Line, there may be difficulty in meeting the regulations in full, there will be other lines, such as the District Line, where the vehicles could be made fully compliant. We could not accept a broad exemption in the Bill, for the reasons that I have outlined. We must be much more discriminating than that to ensure that disabled people enjoy the fullest possible rights.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, an exemption is not necessary. If there is a situation where, for example, the Jubilee line annunciator system is in existence and is compliant and the company then wants to introduce a system in the back of seats, there is no reason why it should no do so. It does not need an exemption in order to do so. That is the situation.
	While some outside bodies seem to be persuaded, it seems to me that this is a dud argument. I do not know why the department is going on about it. In all events, it is dangerous to say that after 2020 the Government can go on with the same powers to make exemptions as they have, or will have after the Bill goes through. In that context, incidentally, the Minister said that, if the Government procedures went forward, any exemptions after 2020 would be by affirmative resolution. I cannot find that anywhere in the amendments she mentions but, if the Government's view prevails, no doubt she can clarify that—although I hope their view does not prevail.
	The only other argument is that the exemptions may be needed after 2020 because some of the railway tunnels are too small to enable compliance. If that is so, because this is what might be called a permanent exemption, I see no reason why the regulations that decide what compliance means should not be adjusted. The Minister says that is a "clumsy" way of doing it, but it is no clumsier than any other system. In fact, it is to avoid any "clumsiness" that the Government will retain the right to make exemptions after 2020.
	We have said all along in the course of these debates that either we can settle for an early date such as 2017 and then have exemptions, or we can set the date of 2020 as a genuine deadline. We do not find—nor, I think, so the Liberal Democrats—that we can support the Government's arguments for maintaining exemptions after 2020. Maintaining them has considerable dangers. The industry, as the time gets nearer, will say, "Don't worry. We don't need primary legislation to make any difference here. We will be able to do this by exemption, because look what they passed back in 2005—they gave the Government just the same power to make exemptions after 2020 as before. Why won't they go and make some changes?".
	That being so, there are two sets of amendments that would bring out what I believe ought to be done: Amendment No. 7, which leaves out the tail end of the government amendment, and Amendment No. 12. On balance, if we come to a vote—unless the Minister suddenly produces some new argument by which we are all astonished—Amendment No. 7 is probably the better of the two. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for observing that the Government have 15 years to get this right. I am delighted he thinks a Labour government will still be in power in 2020.
	We have had a series of debates in Committee and on Report. Your Lordships will remember that the Joint Select Committee that I chair recommended that the consultation on the setting of the end date was begun immediately. There was no justification for further delay. That has happened, because we now have the Government's acceptance of 2020. The report said,
	"The Committee's analysis of the evidence we have received, together with the Department of Transport's own data, leads us to suggest an end-date of the end of 2017. We conclude that this, together with a limited exemption system which would itself expire in 2025, would be an appropriate compromise between the needs of disabled people and the industry's current replacement programme".
	Your Lordships will note that we have moved on since then, and I think we all accepted that what we wanted was 2020 on the face of the Bill, which we have, and a robust exemption procedure when we get to 2020, but an exemption procedure implies that there will be exemptions. It seems the whole argument is turning on the robustness or otherwise of the exemption procedure that will be available in 2020. We now have the annual report, which is a good step forward, and the need for any change after 2020 to be dealt with through the affirmative procedure.
	Let me remind your Lordships that in the Joint Committee report, the figures we had from the Department of Transport indicated that, under the procedure as it was then, in 2020 there would be 2,080 rail vehicles not regulated. That number has changed slightly since then, as the numbers have been updated. The government amendment clearly states:
	"The Secretary of State shall exercise the power to make rail vehicle accessibility regulations so as to secure that on or after 1st January 2020 every rail vehicle is a regulated rail vehicle".
	If I read that correctly, it means that the 2,080 vehicles that would otherwise have been exempt will not be, except for the robust exemptions procedure. The argument simply turns on whether there should be any exemptions after 2020.
	The Minister referred to the Disability Rights Commission, which understands the situation. We have all seen its briefing, but it is worth reminding ourselves of what it says. Under a heading about amendments to prevent any exemptions from RVAR after 2020, the commission says that it cannot support them, as it accepts that there may need to be some exemptions after 2020 in exceptional circumstances. In particular, the DRC is concerned that such amendments could inadvertently prevent short-term exemptions geared towards testing important innovations in rail vehicle access, with a view to later amendments of the RVAR to incorporate innovations which work well for disabled people. That is a clearly expressed view of the Disability Rights Commission, which I am sure has discussed it with the DPTAC. In any event, the DRC would expect the Government to use provisional procedures to ensure that exemptions which are not considered beyond 2020 are dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
	We have gone a long way and persuaded the Government to accept a number of substantial changes. The matter turns on whether you feel that in 2020 there will be very limited and robust exemption procedures—from all that we have heard, it seems that there will be. There will also be the double lock. We will not have to wait until 2020 to find out whether the rail companies have expensive lawyers to gain themselves exemptions, as an annual report will tell us what is happening every year. It will be presented to Parliament and I am sure can be debated, which will show how well everyone is performing.
	If I understand matters correctly, the Government have moved towards accepting 2020 as a firm end-date in the Bill. By doing so, they are substantially reducing the number of exempt vehicles that would otherwise have been there in 2020. The question turns on whether you feel that the exemption procedure in 2020 will be robust enough to ensure—through the affirmative procedure and the annual report—that for a couple of years things will work. The operating companies will be taking a very big chance if they go in for expensive changes without knowing whether they can get an exemption after 2020. The Minister made that point.
	We have achieved a great deal from the Government and made progress. I take their word and argument on the exemptions procedure. If it comes to a vote, we should reject Amendment No. 7, which suggests that the exemption procedure in 2020 will not work, and accept the Government's amendment.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I would like to ask a few questions while information is being obtained. Amendment No. 6 states:
	"The Secretary of State shall exercise the power to make rail vehicle accessibility regulations so as to secure that on and after 1st January 2020 every rail vehicle is a regulated rail vehicle.
	That is quite clear:
	"every rail vehicle is a regulated rail vehicle",
	except—obviously—for those that are exempt. The noble Lord has a point. He wants the matter to be clarified. How long do the exemptions that are granted in 2018 or 2019 run for?
	It is a fair point to ask, but the intention of Amendment No. 6 is that every vehicle will be regulated except those that are exempt. The House has now accepted the Government's argument that the exemption procedure will be very limited, but the noble Lord has asked a fair point to which I believe my noble friend the Minister now has an answer, so I can sit down.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I make clear from these Benches—as I did on Report, so I do not propose to repeat my remarks—that we think the Government's approach of saying that not all cancers should automatically result in a person who suffers from them being deemed to be disabled. Again, giving my own experience of rodent ulcers, it does not feel right that I—for example—would be treated as disabled for the purposes of the Bill, shortly to become the Act.
	We would none the less support Amendment No. 19. It seems to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made clear, that the widest possible consultation would be appropriate before deciding which cancers to include or exclude. But, in general, as I said, we think that the Government are taking a reasonable and balanced approach on this.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. We have established a convention that there are no final speeches, but I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said about the scrutiny of the House and the extent to which, as a result, in most respects—perhaps bar one—the Bill has been substantially improved in ways that persuaded the Government, as opposed to by simple votes in the House. If I may put it this way, the amendments are therefore more likely to have staying power and robustness. I thank your Lordships and, especially, officials, who have worked very expeditiously to produce amendments to meet the spirit of your Lordships' concern at Report.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we move from the sublime to something, but I am not quite sure what.
	The regulations before us today amend several regulations that provide for the old and new child support schemes. We have provided a quasi-Keeling schedule. Some of the amendments are purely technical. If your Lordships will allow, I shall give a brief explanation of the more significant changes. I shall be as brief as I can.
	Regulation 2 inserts a new Regulation 8A into the maintenance arrangements and jurisdiction regulations. In the new scheme, parents who have a court order made on or after 3 March 2003 can apply for a maintenance calculation once the order has been in force for a year. In those cases, maintenance liability starts two months and two days after the date of the application and the order then ceases. Where we do not calculate child support maintenance within that time, the new regulation provides that payments made under the order after liability starts are treated as payments of child support maintenance. In other words, basically, where we have failed to make a maintenance calculation in time, the court order payments can run on and be taken into account. That seems common sense, and that is what people plan.
	Regulation 3 amends Regulation 23 of the maintenance procedure regulations. It applies where there is a maintenance assessment and one qualifying child leaves the household of the person with care but other qualifying children remain. It provides that the maintenance assessment is superseded with effect from the first day of the maintenance period in which the child left the household. It also ensures that in those cases, or where one of the children ceases to be a qualifying child—for example, all on his or her 19th birthday—the tolerance rule will not apply.
	As your Lordships will know, the tolerance rule means that if any assessment results in a change of maintenance of less than £10, it is not acted on because it is regarded as relatively minor and below the threshold. However, where a child no longer qualifies, that disregard, so to speak, because of the tolerance rules, should not be applied and the maintenance would therefore be adjusted even if otherwise, the change would fall below the threshold.
	Regulation 4 amends the maintenance assessments in special cases regulations. One amendment clarifies the policy intention. That is as the result of some question marks thrown over our proceedings by the child support commissioner. This is a difficult area. When determining the amount of tax-free earnings in calculating the income tax of a self-employed person, it should be based on the standard personal allowances generally applied to a person in the individual circumstances, rather than his individual tax code.
	Further amendments take account of the Armed Forces compensation scheme and provision of financial support under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, generally maintaining parity with treatment under existing schemes. Again, there is no significant challenge under that Act.
	Regulation 6 amends the maintenance calculations and special cases regulations. The amendments in Regulation 6(2) ensure that non-resident parents receiving payments under the Armed Forces compensation scheme will have flat-rate liability in the same way as those receiving payments under the war pensions scheme.
	In the new scheme, special treatment applies to a non-resident parent who supports other non-qualifying children; for example, any who live abroad. The treatment produces a lower child support liability than otherwise would apply. Currently the provision applies only if the child maintenance is paid under a maintenance order, which covers orders made in Great Britain.
	Regulation 6(4) extends that provision so that it applies also where the support is given either under the terms of an order made by a court outside Great Britain or under a legislative scheme of a jurisdiction outside the UK. Regulation 6(5) mirrors for the new scheme the amendments to regulation 4 relating to income tax and earnings from self-employment.
	Regulation 7 amends the transitional regulations. Paragraph (3) amends regulation 27 of those. It clarifies how the rules on amounts to be paid are to be applied where a change is to be made during the phase-in period. That is where a non-resident parent who previously had a liability to more than one person with care now has a liability to only one.
	Regulation 8, which applies to the new scheme, makes amendments to the variations regulations. A variation can be allowed where a non-resident parent has special expenses because of the costs of looking after a child with a long-term illness or disability. In considering an application, any financial assistance, including DLA paid to the non-resident parent to help with those costs, is taken into account. The amendment at 8(3) expands that provision to cover where those payments are made to anyone in the non-resident parent's household.
	The next change has been made in response to a number of representations. That point was raised by Mr Webb, the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, about what was seen as an unfair manipulation of the rules as they stand. That is possibly the most significant of all the regulations that we are talking about today.
	The way in which some non-resident parents receive their income is reducing their liability for maintenance in the new scheme by an unacceptable degree. Regulation 8 inserts a new regulation, 19(1A), which extends the existing ground whereby a parent with care may seek a variation relating to income not taken into account. It will apply to cases where the non-resident parent has the ability to control the income he receives from a business or company. It covers cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the non-resident parent is receiving such income that would otherwise not count as income in maintenance calculations; for example, a company director who receives his income in dividends.
	I have had representations from various members in the other place about the manipulation of income artificially to reduce the liability for maintenance. The amount of income received in that way will be added to the non-resident parent's net weekly income and used to calculate his or her liability.
	Paragraph (5)(b) substitutes the existing threshold position. It limits the new variation to cases where the income that I have described is over £100 per week or an aggregate of over £100 where a combination of existing and new provisions applies.
	Paragraph (5)(c) provides for a variation where that type of income is diverted to other persons or for other purposes; for example, invested in the company. It also removes the provision that allows a variation on the grounds of diversion of income to be given only where the diversion has taken place in order to reduce child support liability.
	In conclusion, the regulations before us make amendments to ensure that new and old schemes operate as fairly and effectively as possible. Most of those regulations are in direct response to issues raised either by MPs or the Child Support Commissioner, suggesting that there was some ambiguity in our proceedings. They underpin our continuing commitment to making sure that child support produces the intentions of Parliament. I am satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend them to the House.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, on behalf of my honourable friend the Member for Northavon, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she explained the specific concerns on that part of the order. In general, we on these Benches have serious concerns about the general operation of the Child Support Agency. Of course, the noble Baroness will be only too aware of that as she has been the responsible Minister since 1997. But this is not the time or the place to go into detail. There will other opportunities that we will pursue.
	As regards this order, perhaps I may ask the idiot question. As a result of these regulations and the switch to the new system, will children or resident parents be worse off? If so, in which cases and why?

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister is right in saying that the diseases covered by the regulations are terrible. Of the eight orders and regulations that we are debating, this is the only one which has already been debated in the Commons—on 22 February. An extensive debate took place, and it received an appropriate ministerial reply, which dealt with nearly all the main issues involved.
	It was pointed out during that debate that an undertaking was given last year that the various payments—I do not say "benefits"—that are made to this tragic group would be uprated year by year. The regulations fulfil that undertaking, and I most certainly welcome them.
	As the Minister mentioned, one of the most unfortunate groups of workers comprises those who suffer from mesothelioma. The tragedy is that the number of people who are dying from this disease, with absolutely no hope of reprieve, is likely to go increasing for many years.
	It is intended that the increase in payments should offset inflation. I am not entirely clear on two points. First, does the uprating cover all cases of people suffering from these diseases? In one case of which I have personal knowledge, the person concerned was unaware of where the illness had been acquired. There was no specific occupation in which it was thought he might have picked up the disease, although various occupations where he might have done so were considered. Do the regulations cover everyone, or do they depend on the disease being related to some previous occupation?
	I turn to my second point. The payments have been increased by 3.1 per cent and rounded to the nearest pound, and so on. Will they be means-tested and will they be taxable? If they are either of those, the extent to which they compensate for inflation will be correspondingly diminished. Has that point been considered? I believe that one can isolate work-related diseases from many of the other problems of health and social security with which we contend.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, while on the subject of moving remarks, I was rereading the debate that was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, a couple of years ago in which he spoke about white asbestos as opposed to blue and brown. I recall Lord Walker of Doncaster observing that, while the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, talked about asbestos in his barns, he had asbestos in his lungs. He held the House in his hand while he spoke.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether the regulations covered all cases. The trigger for the payments is that one is already receiving industrial injuries benefit. Eligibility is related, first, to work which, conventionally, has been in slate-related industries—although it increasingly applies to the construction industry, which is probably the biggest single cause of new cases coming through—and where the employer is no longer in business. In other words, it is a substitute in instances where the person involved cannot go after the employer, usually because, as the noble Lord will know, these are diseases with long a latency—40 years, 60 years. Many of the firms involved have long been out of business.
	That is why we have this rather special scheme. However, to get access to it, first you have to have acquired the disease at work and, secondly, the employer is no longer in business. Therefore, you have no other form of compensation or additional financial support. This was a decent thing that was done as the clock ticked in 1979, in the last months before a general election. It was done by a Labour government, and the following government did not seek to overturn it. There was consent.
	Secondly, the noble Lord asked me whether payments count against income support. Yes, they do count against income support, but it would be rare for somebody to be on income support if were qualified for this scheme. Normally, someone would, for example, get industrial injuries benefit. They might get additional incapacity benefit. They might well get DLA and so on, and then some money in addition as well.
	Someone might be on income support, in which case it would count against income support. The way that these incomes build up, one would be talking about incomes of anywhere between £10,000 and £12,000 a year through disability benefits, and then a payment depending on the extent of the disability.
	I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, did anything other than say than he welcomed our approach, so, with those responses, I hope your Lordships will accept these regulations.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, although effectively the regulations deal with what are really social security problems, we have a change of batting. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, retired on 100 not out. There was rather a bad referee's decision earlier, after the Division, but other than that she did admirably throughout a very long session. That change of batting reflects the extent to which, since 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury have taken over many aspects of social security under the Chancellor's obsession with tax credits of various kinds.
	Many people are now extremely confused about what is happening on tax credits. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord seemed to underestimate the amount of confusion about tax credits and overestimate the extent to which the credits are taken up. Since 1999—this is all related to the child credit or the tax credit regulations that we are debating—we have seen the abolition of the family credit; the introduction of the working families tax credit; the introduction of the disabled person's tax credit; the introduction of the child care tax credit; the introduction of an employment credit; the introduction of a children's tax credit; and the introduction of a baby tax credit. Then the Government abolished the working families tax credit; the disabled person's tax credit; the children's tax credit; and the baby tax credit. They introduced a child tax credit; abolished the employment tax credit; they introduced the working tax credit; and finally they introduced a pensions credit. It is not surprising that people are a little confused, and it is not surprising that many people do not take up the benefits to which they are entitled.
	Under these orders, they will be up-rated. To what extent does the Minister expect that this increased amount will be taken up, together with the amount that was previously being paid? It seems that a high percentage of people are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled. As the noble Lord will know, the Government assume to a large extent that many of those benefits will not be taken up.
	It is worth mentioning that we are concerned here with the child tax credit. Part of the problem with the administration of the child tax credit is that the Chancellor has tended to take over one aspect after another of the social security framework, with very little resistance from the three Secretaries of State who one after another did not really fight their corner on this. At least the new Secretary of State seems to be taking a more abrasive attitude, which suggests that the obsession with tax credits might be open to some qualification at present.
	The other problem is that the administration of the child tax credit was taken over by the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue is, on the whole, remarkably efficient at collecting money. It came as no great surprise that it turned out to be rather inefficient as disbursing money, something for which historically it has not been renowned. The result is that the Revenue has allegedly disbursed a considerable amount of child tax credit to people who, after the event, it has decided are not entitled to it. What is the Revenue now going to do? It is going to collect it back. That is having a serious effect on a significant number of people.
	As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the child tax credit is designed to help many people on low incomes. If the Revenue suddenly pays out money to which it subsequently decides the recipients are not entitled, and then in its usual rather draconian way tries to get it back, a considerable amount of hardship may be caused to a significant number of people. Having no doubt spent the money, because they are hard up, there is little action that people can take to put the matter right. That is why my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State announced a little while ago that as far as the Conservative Party is concerned there should be an amnesty, unless it can be shown that the overpayment was caused by fraud on the part of the claimant.
	This is a serious problem that affects individuals. While the increases under this order will be welcomed, the take-up and the problems faced by those who have suffered from the way in which tax credits have been administered by the Inland Revenue are very significant matters for concern. We do not wish to oppose the order, but these are serious issues that reflect the complexity produced by the Chancellor's obsession with every conceivable tax credit and that give us considerable disquiet. No doubt that is something that we will have to tackle when we come into government.